MUHAMMAD YAQOOB vs Dr. BADSHAH BEGUM And Other
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal concerning the allotment and subsequent confiscation of land originally allotted to Mangli in District Sheikhupura. The core legal question involves the validity of the restoration of the allotment by the Settlement Commissioner in favour of the original allottee without notice to interested parties, and the rights of a purported bona fide purchaser where the initial allotment was obtained through fraud or misrepresentation. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly quashed the Settlement Commissioner's order, noting that the land was indeed subject to a confiscatory order by a Special Military Court and that alienation by an allottee is void if the allotment is subsequently found to be tainted by fraud or misrepresentation. The key principle laid down is that an order passed without notice to interested parties is rightly set aside in constitutional jurisdiction, and alienation of land by an allottee is deemed void if the underlying allotment is found to be the result of fraud or misrepresentation.
- Whether an order passed by a Settlement Commissioner restoring an allotment without notice to interested parties is lawful?
- What is the legal effect on an alienation of land by an allottee if the allotment is subsequently found to be obtained by fraud or misrepresentation?
- Is a bona fide purchaser entitled to restoration of land when the original allotment was confiscated and the alienation deemed void?
- Para. 14, Part II, Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme
ORDER
M. S. H. QURAISHI, J.--The dispute relates to the allotment of land in Khata No.141 R.L.II situate in Chak No.19/G.B., Tehsil and District Sheikhupura. This land had been initially allotted to one Mangli on 22-3-1958. It had, however, been confiscated in the result of proceedings before a Special Military Court on 1-7-1960. Ultimately, the allotment was cancelled by the Settlement and Rehabilitation Commis--sioner on 12-1-1968. The petitioner, claiming to have purchased the land from said Mangli, applied for restoration of the allotment in favour of the original allottee on the ground that its confiscation by the Special Military Court had been assumed erroneously. The Settlement Commissioner without notice to the interested parties accepted the application and restored the allotment by his order, dated 18-6-1968. It led the respondents to invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court, in the result of which the order dated 18-6-1968 was quashed on 31-5-1981. Aggrieved the petitioner seeks leave to appeal.
2. The question whether the land in Khata No.141 had been subject of the confiscatory order was examined by the High Court and found in the affirmative. In fact, learned counsel for the petitioner appearing before the High Court had conceded that the order of the Settlement Commissioner dated 18-6-1968 was without lawful authority. All that he had prayed for was remand of the matter so that the petitioner who was "bona fide purchaser" from the original allottee, could press his case before the Settlement authorities but the prayer was turned down.
3. Para.14, Part II, of the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme while permitting alienation of land by an allottee, provides that if the allottee---alienor is subsequently found to have obtained the allotment of land by fraud or misrepresentation, the alienation will be deemed to be void. Even otherwise, the petitioner's claim to have purchased the property from Mangli was not accepted by the High Court. No case is thus made out for grant of leave. The petition is dismissed.